Irish cardinal attempts to block publication of child abuse files

[emad]

Source: Henry McDonald, Ireland correspondent

Ireland's ongoing paedophile priest scandals have taken a bizarre turn with two of the country's top Catholic clerics clashing in the courts over secret church files.

Cardinal Desmond Connell and Archbishop Diarmuid Martin are battling over the proposed publication of files relating to the former's handling of complaints against paedophile priests.

The unprecedented move to hold up publication has prompted claims of a church cover up by a senior Irish canon law expert.

Connell, 81, went to the high court this week to prevent an Irish state inquiry from examining files concerned with clerical child abuse while he was in charge of the church in Dublin.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2251023,00.html

[originalpckelly]

1. Those damn birds are getting uppity aren't they?

[xchrom]

2. they need time to formulate who they are going to blame -- and then attack.

[LiberalFighter]

3. Any religion that protects scumbags like that should be banished

[AzDar]

4. "Imagine no religion....".

You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one...

[awoke_in_2003]

5. I dream of the day

that we, as a people, get intelligent enough to throw religion, and the idea of some sky daddy, out of lives. Too bad it will never occur.

[happyslug]

7. Impossible if you truly understand what religion is.

Why do people work together? Why do we believe that democracy is the best form of Government? Why do we believed in Freedom of Speech?

Religion is MORE than a belief in God, in fact Buddhism is a Religion that has NO central belief in one god or many gods (Or no gods) but it has a set of beliefs that forms the basis of Buddhism

Communism has a "Holy Book" (Das Capital), a Christ/Moses/Buddha like Figure (Karl Marx). Technically it embraces Atheism, but has a set world view that people MUST believe in. Non-Believers are punished and isolated. Heretics are punished. Communism had a set world view, a book of Scripture, a hierarchy and a "founder". Even Right wing radicals call Communism a "Religion".

My point is "religion" is NOT a belief in God (It can be but not necessary) but a world view based on a set of commonly held beliefs. Ayn Rand is the founder of another set of such beliefs, that corporations are the wave of the Future, that it is best for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. The best way to "help" society is to kill off the weak (mostly poor) so the "strong" will prevail. This crew embraces any science that supports this position (For Example Evolution, for it "Shows" that the "best rule" for society is to embrace "Survival of the Fittest").

I can go on, but my point is simple, Religion is NOT just a belief in God, it is HOW you look at the world and understand your role in it. The Supreme Court has long embraced this definition of "Religion". Being human, we seek to understand out position in Society and life and that understanding is your religion. It may or may not embrace a concept of God, but it is your religion. For that reason we will never have a society without religion. In fact the First Congress understood this problem and thus when it wrote the Bill of Rights, it prohibited Congress from passing any law to restrict OR support any religion. This permitted people to seek whatever they wanted as a religion, which is as far as you can expect.

[ursi]

8. religion is mind control

[happyslug]

11. Religion is how we define ourselves as a member of Society.

So much of this is mind control, but so is most of what we call being a member of society. We do not rob each other on the street, we do not attack each other for the cloths on our backs. Why? For we view each other as members of the same group. How we define that group is our religion. This varies from group to group. For example rural desert herding groups has a tendency to avoid pigs? Why? Pigs use as much water as a human. Sheep and goats use less water, thus you can have more sheep and goats supporting more people then if pigs were used. This is the basis behind the Jewish and Arabic tradition of being anti-pork, it is religious but that is how they define their government.

Other example exist, people will adjust their "Religion" to reflect their economic situation, but they still have a world view and a view of themselves within their society. Thus religion varies from Country to Country, even if two countries have technically the same religion. Just an observation on HOW societies form themselves and how religion reflect what that society accepts as its norms.

[awoke_in_2003]

9. Just a couple questions

1.Are you equating communism and athiesm.
2.You say "Religion is NOT just a belief in God, it is HOW you look at the world and understand your role in it". Are you saying that, because I don't believe in god- because god does not stand up to any scientific scrutiny and can't be proven by scientific methods- that my lack of belief is a religion? And I understand my role in life, I have procreated, so my role in life has changed since 5 years ago. My role in life is to raise my boy to be a good human being by leading by example; and then, when I die and am cremated, to be sprinkled on the earth to act as so much fertilizer.

[happyslug]

12. Communist states the State official "religion" should be Atheism.

That at least was Karl Marx's position as to religion. When Lenin took control of Russia, he suppressed the Orthodox Church (More do to opposition from the Orthodox hierarchy then anything else). Stalin followed the same pattern, but he also demanded that everyone in the Communist party followed his policies, citing both Marx and Lenin. He drove out Trotsky like the early church drove out heretics. Even today go to the Troskite cites and you see Stalin called the person who drove Russia AWAY from true communism (They tend not to use that language but if you read enough it is there).

As to your Second Question, people do NOT only procreate, we also interact with other people who procreate. Thus to be Human is NOT to be an Individual that survives and make more of ourselves but how do we work with other members of the group we are a member of. Religion helps define that group. People are NOT a herd, who live together for mutual protection but other wise on their own. For example buffalo, Zebras and other herd animals herd together, with the strongest forcing themselves and there offspring into the center, where you are least likely to get attacked by predictors. When no predictors are around they force themselves to the outside to get access to food. People are social, we do more then just live together, we work together. It is better to work together if people have things in common, thus religion. It is a way for people define themselves as one.

Thus ask yourself, why are you on this website? It is NOT to procreate, but to find people who you can work together with at lest on the intellectual level. That is a "religious" finding, it is a strongly held set of beliefs (Basic DU points) you embrace with others. Being Human we need to interact and we interact best when we interact with people who think the same way we do. That is a world view and is "religious" in the sense it is HOW we believe we should work together, which has been the role of religion once we moved from the Old Stone age cultures to the larger and more advance New Stone Age Culture. Has this religious tendency been abused, yes, but it survives for it is HOW people live together as a group larger then their immediate family. We need to work together to make a better world for ourselves. That is the basis behind all religions or other world views (Many holders of world views do NOT like to call their world views "religion" but if you understand the underlying concepts, which I tried to explain above, it is.

Given how religion is inter-weaved with Society, it is impossible to separate religion from being human. This is fundamental to being human for we want and need to work with other humans, and we need to belong to something larger then our own families. Government alone can NOT do this, in fact Government often uses "Religion" to define what its role is and the role of the members of the society under that Government.

Look at the US, we have a set of beliefs, we believe in democracy, the Bill of Rights, the rights of others. Most people look at these beliefs and have internalized them. They are "religious" in nature for their are our common set of common beliefs, they form the foundation of the US. Most Americans accept these "beliefs" they are the common Beliefs of our Society, and this form the "Religion" of our Society.

[awoke_in_2003]

18. Religion implies a belief in a supernatural

being, and the worship of that being. Our beliefs in the principles of this country are unrelated. The principles set forth in the founding documents are there to ensure the survival of this country and its people (survival of the species). It is not a religion. And atheism, no matter how much a lot of christians in this country want to claim, is not a religion. Just because I do not believe in god does not automatically mean I worship something else, that is ludicrous. Religion may have a place in this country, but it would be really nice if people would keep it where it belongs.

[awoke_in_2003]

10. and further on my role on earth

like every organism on this planet, its role on earth is to procreate. In order for the human species to multiply, certain safeguards naturally have to come into existance. If we are cavemen, and I come over and take your meat or steal your mate or kill your offspring, what do you do? You beat me to death with a club. Why? because i have just threatened your existance. Right there lies the basic rules of our lives- doing bad unto another will get you beat to death. As we became more advanced, so did our actions toward others. These eventually evolved into morals or religions (do unto others as you would have them do unto you). We have become much more civilized, over the years, as a species. But our primitive side is still there, lurking just below the civility. And the primal drive to procreate will never be erased.

[PassingFair]

14. If religion is all that....what is atheism?

You have pretty broad definitions!

[happyslug]

15. Religion has always had a broad definition

Remember by religion we are NOT restricting ourselves to any belief in God, gods, spirits or any other myths. Religion is any strongly held set of beliefs, which can include a disbelief in God.

Atheism is in many ways an anti-belief, a rejection of a set of beliefs. The problem with most "Anti" what are they for? Karl Marx embraced atheism as a solution to the problem of what religion the state should support NOT as a belief system itself. Friedrich Engels was more anti-religion than Marx was, but both were noted atheists of their time period, but both saw the state religions of their day as a opposing theology to communism. They theology was Communism and that was their world view and that set of beliefs became their religion.

Rosa Luxembourg, around 1900, wrote a paper on the difference between Communist Atheism and Bourgeois Atheism (I will not go into it here) but she was in many ways protective of religious beliefs IF IT DID NOT INTERFERE WITH COMMUNISM and pointed out the Bourgeois Atheism of her time period wanted to destroy religion for it interfere where the Bourgeois wanted the country to go (This was also one of the dispute between her and Lenin who was more anti-religious than Luxembourg).

Basically atheism suffers form a fundamental problem, what do you believe in? In Christianity the belief in God is tied in with how you view yourself in relation not only with God but each other. In many ways Communism contained this view except rejected the belief in God AND the hierarchy that supported that belief. Non-Communist Atheism rejects a belief in God, but what does it replace it with? People claim Science, but Science is NOT a belief System, it is how the world exists. Science does get into how we interact, but NOT why we do with others (And who we defined as "us" as opposed to "them". Communism addresses this problem of who is "us", but Science does not for it can not.

Now, Science can be used as a excuse for other beliefs. Darwinism is used to justify leaving the poor to starve to death and suppression of people is OK (i.e. survival of the Fittest" then define "fittest" as the richest (Justify Wealth and the transfer of money from the poor to the Rich). Such Social Darwinism is called "Science" by the rich and justify treating the poor badly. Ayn Rand was the biggest source of this belief system. While based on Social Darwinism this group rejects Science that shows such favoritism to the Rich is bad (For example the need for Universal Military Service which means also universal medical care, another example is that is is cheaper to set up inner city night basketball for inner city poor is cheaper and more effective then higher more police).

My point is the simple disbelief in God (Classic definition of Atheism) since it does NOT provide a world view to replace Christianity, leads to four situations.

First is a return to Christianity, for it gives a world view that includes taking care of the poor, modified for people who rejects other aspects of traditional Christian beliefs but as a whole reinstated.

Second is Communisms (Or some derivative of it). This provides for the idea, like Christianity, provides for a Society where the problems of the poor is addressed. No demand for a belief in God, but generally has a pro-working class (And high anti-mIddle class) attitude.

Third, some sort of Ayn Rand hell hole, where the rich gets everything and the poor die off unless they are needed for some reason by the Rich.

Fourth, some sort of combination of the above four situations. For example Christian basic world view, no belief in God, but emphasis on the poor, but accepting of ALL people as part of society. The problem with this is how do people interact together? Karl Marx, Ayn Rand and Jesus Christ all addressed this problem. A belief in God may be needed to keep the hierarchy in line so that a fair system is sought and preserved, but that is a result of the fact of the three people I named only one has his world view last 2000 years.

Thus my problem with Atheism is NOT the lack of a belief in God, but the lack of definition of what should society be. The above groups do NOT suffer from this problem, they have a world view, with at least two independent of any belief in God. What does any one Atheist believe? What is his or her world view? That is more important than any belief in God.

One last comment, the belief in God includes with it traditions tied in with that belief. Thomas Jefferson liked and commented that Christ's Philosophy was the best he ever read (He disbelieved in the miracles in the bible, but Christ's teachings were viewed by Jefferson as fundamental). Atheism for the last 200 years is generally a rejection of these teachings. Once rejected what replaces it? Christ's teaching includes a belief in God, but it is more than that, it includes helping the poor, working together to help each other, helping widows and orphans. Thus the issue is NOT that an atheist rejects a belief in God, but what other social traditions (i.e. our "Religion") does he or she reject? Do you go into the Karl Marx or Ayn Rand routes? or do you keep traditional Christian beliefs without the belief in God? This is also the weakness of Atheism, what does any one atheist believe? Does he or she still believe in helping her or his fellow humans or does he or she go down the road to Social Darwinism? The atheist will have to go down one of the above four roads, and which one he or she goes down in more important than any belief in God.

[PassingFair]

16. In the absence of religion, society will continue to exist.

And we will continue to function in the
ways that promote the group.

Same as it ever was.

By your definition, there is no difference
between philosophy and religion.

So there is no need to "replace" religion.

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. You seem to think that Christianity is the only code that cares for the poor

You say:

"First is a return to Christianity, for it gives a world view that includes taking care of the poor, modified for people who rejects other aspects of traditional Christian beliefs but as a whole reinstated"

Taking care of the poor is not "as a whole reinstating Christianity". Christianity is about believing Jesus was anointed by the Supreme Being (and, in more or less all current versions, that he was himself divine). That is the basics of Christianity - 'Christ' meaning 'anointed'. Taking care of the poor is a feature of many religions, and also non-religious ethical outlooks.

You see a strangely restricted set of choices for societies. First of all, you should understand that Ayn Rand is only a fad figure in the US - in other countries, few people have heard of her. She is not a major influence on any society - basic capitalism and free-market economics, social darwinism, and so on were going long before she came around. She just wrote a few books that right-wing American college students have liked. But you also seem to think the only religion is Christianity. Only about a third of the world is Christian. Think global, when you're wondering about the alternatives.

You say:
"Thus the issue is NOT that an atheist rejects a belief in God, but what other social traditions (i.e. our "Religion") does he or she reject? Do you go into the Karl Marx or Ayn Rand routes? or do you keep traditional Christian beliefs without the belief in God? This is also the weakness of Atheism, what does any one atheist believe? Does he or she still believe in helping her or his fellow humans or does he or she go down the road to Social Darwinism? The atheist will have to go down one of the above four roads, and which one he or she goes down in more important than any belief in God."

Well, that's the problem for anyone - atheist, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist etc. There are selfish people in all those categories. Rand is, as I said, irrelevant; Marx is one end of societal attitudes - where everyone must get equal goods and benefits, by law; there are many societies you can construct with varying individual freedoms to take and keep what people can, and to help those who fall behind. But this isn't religion, whatever you claim - people within religions disagree on it, and people in different religions can hold the same views on it. It's the basis of society - politics, economics and ethics. You can adapt your policies on it to circumstances (which isn't a characteristic of a religious view). Atheism is still the lack of a belief in gods. It really isn't more than that.

[happyslug]

6. For information the Church and the Vatican wants to release.

Martin, a former Vatican diplomat and rising star of the Irish Catholic church, wanted to hand over the files as part of his policy to create more openness in the Dublin diocese.

But without informing Martin, Connell went to the high court on Wednesday night to seek an injunction preventing the files from being handed over.

The documents are understood to relate to legal advice Connell and other members of the Catholic hierarchy received following claims of widespread child sexual abuse in the Dublin diocese.

[emad]

13. The cover-ups of cover-ups are part of the problem.

Child sex abuse has thrived in closed male-only hierarchies.

During the early 1980s I did some extensive legal work in Saudi Arabia on domestic violence and chikld molestation issues. The problem was widespread there where male-dominated Islam segregates the sexes in a divide and rule dictatorship.

Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi has talked of similar epidemic-sized problems in Iran.

The Irish situation is grave because it has taken state-sponsiored denial for the cover-ups to thrive.

[happyslug]

17. And it is noted to run in Families even in the US.

Estimates as high as 90% of all victims are family victims have been made. Given that most such cases are NOT open to the public, people do NOT hear of such attacks even in the US. I did Children and Youth work (I represented the families, most of my cases was negligent and physical abuse, but every so often sexual abuse came up). Most families just need help, but you had cases where you had the same people in as both perpetrators and victims. Because children are under 18, these cases are NOT open to the public and the issue is ignored even in the US.

The history of the Catholic church pedophile case is a classic case of the situation. The first cases of such pedophile cases were in the late 1970s involving Public school teachers. The cases went to trial, but the Schools were found NOT liable on the grounds of Sovereign immunity. Thus you ended up with cases with Victims winning millions of Dollars, but not collecting a dime for the School were exempt under Sovereign immunity, and the perpetrators where Judgment proof (Owned their homes with their spouses thus house NOT attachable as was their pensions which is also exempt from attachment in most states) and since they lost their job, you can NOT attach their wages, for they had none afterward.

The next group was in the early 1980s, these were the Child care providers where alleged child abuse occurred. The problem here was most were run by low income people and there was simply no money to collect even if you won a huge award.

Then came the Catholic Church. It did NOT have the protection of Sovereign immunity and unlike the child care providers the Catholic Church had money. Attorneys saw this combination and took the cases (Attorneys like to take cases that they get paid after spending thousand of dollars to get a verdict, which was true of cases against the Catholic Church but NOT against public schools and the Child care providers).

Thus the problem of pedophile exist in the US, it is more extensive than the Catholic Church, just that the Catholic Church fell into a trap of its own creation. For decades the Church had a policy of moving priests when such accusation occurred. If the accusation continued the Church moved the priest to a place where he had no contact with children. The problem was certain bishops just kept moving the Priest to new parishes instead of to a place where he had no contact with children. This is what the Church has had to pay for, failure to do its job WHEN IT CAME CLEAR THEIR HAD A PROBLEM PRIEST.

As I have written before, the Church has NOT been held liable for just one case of pedophilia. The reason for this is simple, one case is hard to prove. When a child accuses a Priest the burden of proof is on the child to show that it occurred NOT the priest to show it did not. Given the nature of the crime, hard to prove. The problem for the Catholic Church one case in isolation is easy to defend, the problem is when you have multiple accusations. Each case then helps prove the other cases. Given the policy of moving such priests around, if the problem disappeared that is good evidence the previous accusations were false, but new accusation is good evidence of the previous accusations being true. Thus you hear of the multiple cases, for each case helps prove the others.

Now the Catholic Church in America adopted new rules during the mid-1990s that should correct these problems. The new Rules made it clear accused Priests MUST be transferred to a location without potential victims. This should end the problem (If you define the problem of making sure such pedophile Priests are kept away from children). Now this does NOT end the litigations. Children can file lawsuits, in most states, for tow to four years after they turn 18. Most victims were around 12 (Very few cases below 10) mostly do to lack of access to victims before that age (additionally probably a sexual preference for 10-14 year olds). If you assume age 10 in 1995, that last year to file a lawsuit will be when he or she turns 22, 12 years after 1995 or 2007. Given that this type of lawsuit can be in the Courts for 4-5 years, the final Judgment may not be till around 2012. The number of lawsuits has been dropping over the last 4-5 years as the children turn 22 and must decide to file a lawsuit or not to do so, but that does not reflect on the effectiveness of the new rules. The fact the number of lawsuits is dropping and hopefully continue to drop will show if the new rules are working. Please note while most Bishops accepted these new rules, some have not (See the Vatican concerns below) but this seems NOT to have been a problem when it came to protecting children (The dispute was how to handle such accusations NOT that pedophile Priest should be around children).

Side note: The Vatican approved the new rules, even through the Vatican has concerns about the rights of Priest who are FALSELY accused (Yes, that does occur). The Vatican accepted the US churches decision that it was better to err on the side of banning an innocent priest then to expose an innocent teen to potential harm. It was a concern, but the Vatican permitted the rule to come into play.

My point is such crimes occur and have to be addressed. The Catholic Church has made steps on this reform (Under the threat of heavy legal losses, but they have adopted changes that will address the problem). My concern is the Catholic Church, by itself, can NOT do all that is needed. One reform kicked about is to open up Children and Youth Service (CYS) cases. Right now, most people do NOT understand the extent of the problem in the US for it is NOT public record (TO protect Children). In my experience, the secrecy does NOT protect the Children, most of their friends know of it, but still do NOT talk about it to the victim, most courts will go out of their way to protect children when that is necessary, but the total secrecy not only protects children, it protects abusers AND CYS from citizen review of what CYS is doing in such cases. In many cases CYS does nothing, not because they lack evidence, they just do NOT want to help a family (Which costs money). Now most of this is negligent cases more then abuse cases, but it has happened in both. Often neglect and abuse is tied in together, father has no job, can't afford a decent house, depressed because he has no employment so lashes out at the kids. What is the best solution, get the father a job, but CYS does not view that as its job, yet they should be if that is the best way to improve the life of the Children. Another example is when a family needs extensive mental health and children and family education and help. CYS does not do that, to much, for it is costly. Why is there not a push for larger CYS budget, for such cases do NOT make the papers do to the Secrecy part of CYS court actions. I am sorry, the better solution would be to have such actions PUBLIC so when it comes out that CYS did not help a family do to cost reasons, people will understand why more money has to be given to CYS. Like the cases involving the Catholic Church it will bring the problem to people's attention and that is what is needed more than anything else.

[Massachusetts]

20. You must be a Certified know it all

In that case....I believe!